DOCUMENT RESUME
EA 026 218
ED 379 728
AUTHOR
TITLE
INSTITUTION
REPORT NO
PUB DATE
NOTE
AVAILABLE FROM
Conley, David T.; Goldman, Paul
Facilitative Leadership: How Principals Lead without
Dominating.
Oregon School Study Council, Eugene.
ISSN-0095-6694
Aug 94
52p.; Based on the chapter "Ten Propositions for
Facilitative Leadership" in Joseph Murphy and Karen
Seashore Louis' 1994 book, "Reshaping the
Principalship."
Publication Sales, Oregon School Study Council,
University of Oregon, 1787 Agate Street, Eugene, OR
97403 ($7, nonmember: $4.50, member; $3 postage and
handling on billed orders; quantity discounts: 10-24
copies--15%, 25-49 copies--20%, 50 plus
copies-25%).
PUB TYPE
JOURNAL CIT
Serials (022)
Collected Works
OSSC Bulletifi; v37 n9 Aug 1994
EDRS PRICE
DESCRIPTORS
MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.
Accountability; Administrator Responsibility;
Administrator Role; Adoption (Ideas); Change Agents;
*Change Strategies; Educational Improvement;
Elementary Secondary Education; Interpersonal
Relationship; *Leadership Qualities; *Leadership
Styles; *Occupational Information; Organizational
Climate; *Participative Decision Making; *Principals;
Public Schools; Resistance to Change; School
Restructuring
*Facilitative Leadership
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
"Facilitative leadership" may be defined as the
ability of principals to lead without controlling, while making it
easier for all members of the school community to achieve agreed-upon
goals. The bulk of the Bulletin consists of a discussion of 10
propositions related to facilitative leadership drawn from 3 sources:
(1) studies in 1991-93 of 9 Oregon schools that were members of the
Oregon Network, a federally funded grant designed to enable schools
in school restructuring; (2) earlier research conducted with Oregon
schools; and (3) observations of other researchers studying the
interaction between leadership and restructuring. The propositions
are grouped under three broad headings--creating and managing
meaning, facilitating the process, and operating in an organizational
context. Strengths and limitations of facilitative leadership are
illuminated. Also described are the interactions among various
organizational and system functions when leadership behaviors change.
(Contains 43 references.) (MLF)
*****************************************************************A*****
*
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
*
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
c;)
FACILITATIVE
LEADERSHIP
How PRINCIPALS LEAD WITHOUT
DOMINATING
U E IMPARTMENT Of EDUCATION
Mao d Edecationet Rematch end Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
flitiit document has been reproduced at
wowed from dm potion or otpanaation
originating if
David T. Conley and Paul Goldman
t
Miner champs ham been made to .mprowe
reproductiOn gtaldy
Points°. vales of opinions Mated In tins dock,-
i:*1 not nocemeray topromnt official
OEM poonon of pokey
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE TI IS
MATERIAL HAS EEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).-
Oregon School Study Council
August 1994 Volume 37, Number 9
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
FACILITATIVE
LEADERSHIP
How PRINCIPALS LEAD WITHOUT
DOMINATING
David T. Conley and Paul Goldman
Oregon School Study Council
August 1994 Volume 37, Number 9
ISSN 0095-6694
Nonmember price: $7.00
Member price: $4.50
Quantity Discounts:
10-24 copies - 15%
25-49 copies - 20%
50+ copies - 25%
OSSC STAFF
Philip K. Pie le, Executive Secretary
Stuart C. Smith, Editor
Linda S. Lumsden, Associate Editor
C. Joelle Scrbacic, Production
Audrey Muller, Publications Sales
OSSC GOVERNING BOARD
Dave Cone, School Board Member, Gresham Grade SD 4
Joan Peterson, School Board Member,Ontario SD 8
Bill Korach, Superintendent, Lake Oswego SD 7J
Bob Stack, Superintendent, Greater Albany Public SD 8J
Marilyn Pheasant, Superintendent, Olney SD 11
Philip K. Pie le, Professor and Executive Secretary,
Oregon School Study Council
David Conley, Associate Professor, Educational Policy and Management,
University of Oregon
Diane Harr, School Board Member, Parkrose School District 3
OREGON SCHOOL STUDY COUNCIL
1787 Agate Street
College of Education
5207 University of Oregon
Eugene, Oregon 97403-5207
(503) 346-5044
Fax: (503) 346-2334
The University of Oregon is an affirmative action, equal opportunity employer.
Preface
In this OSSC Bulletin we exploit facilitative leadership, examining the
extension and evolution of the concept of principal as instructional leader
emphasizing mastery of multiple technical skillsto the management of the
energy flow within a school. We use the term facilitative leadership to
describe how principals come to lead without dominating.
Contemporary scholars have observed an emerging style of principal
leadership characterized by high faculty involvement in and ownership of
decisions, management of the school's vision, and an emphasis on significant
change and improvement. They have discovered that new terminology is
needed to describe the evolution of the principalship in the face of school
restructuring, school-based decision-making, and teacher empowerment.
Educational reformers have begun to develop a vision of schools as
more fluid, adaptive, and cooperative environments, creating a new set of
demands for teachers and principals who must work together for change to
occur. We examine in this Bulletin how some principals employ facilitative
leadership to achieve this vision, and the tensions that occur when this style
of leadership is used.
This Bulletin is based on the chapter "Ten Propositions for Facilitative
Leadership," which appeared in Joseph Murphy and Karen Seashore Louis'
1994 book, Reshaping the Principalship, published by Corwin Press,
Newbury Park. California. The literature review also draws extensively from
other chapters in Reshaping the Principalship. The reader with an interest in
the topic of newly emerging leadership roles, particularly for principals, is
encouraged to consult Reshaping the Principalship for more discussion and
examples of this topic.
iii
About the Authors
David T. Conley is an associate professor of educational policy and
management in the College of Education at the University of Oregon. He
teaches courses on school restructuring, school improvement, educational
leadership, and supervision and evaluation.
Conley contributed to the development and implementation of
Oregon's recent landmark school restructuring bill, the Oregon Educational
Act for the 21st Century Act. Currently, he is director of the Proficiencybased Admission Standards System (PASS) Project for the Oregon State
System of Higher Education, a groundbreaking redesign of admission standards based on proficiency, not seat time. Conley received his B.A. from
University of California, Berkeley, and his master's and doctor's degrees
from the University of Colorado, Boulder. Before joining the faculty at the
University of Oregon, Conley spent eighteen years serving as a school
administrator and teacher in Colorado and California.
Paul Goldman is associate professor of educational policy and management and (by courtesy) Sociology at the University of Oregon. Professor
Goldman specializes in the sociology of school organization and the sociology of school reform. His work has been published in Educational Administration Quarterly, The Journal of Educational Administration, Urban Education, Performance Measurement and Theory, Research in the Sociology of
Organizations, The International Yearbook of Organization Studies, and
other journals.
Since 1990, Professor Goldman has been studying policy and organizational implications of school reform in Oregon and in P,ritish Columbia.
His particular focus has been on studying the impact of site-based management in schools in which restructuring has begun to take hold and codirecting
a statewide study of educator reactions to Oregon's Educational Act for the
21st Century. He has been particularly interested in the intersection between
special education and educational administration, and currently is studying
three schools committed to multiage primary-level instruction and inclusion
of special needs learners.
iv
Contents
Preface
iii
About the Authors
iv
Introduction: Reconstructing the Role of the Principal
1. What Is Facilitative Leadership?
Power and Leadership
Pseudo-Facilitative Leadership
Marks of Genuine Facilitative Leadership
Facilitative Leadership and Democratic Leadership
2. Background to the Study
The Oregon Network
Ten Propositions
3. Creating and Managing Meaning
Creatively Using Tension
Negotiating a Shared Vision
Capitalizing on Opportunities for Change
1
4
4
5
6
9
11
12
12
13
13
15
18
4. Facilitating the Process
Developing New Leaders
Spanning Boundaries to Secure Support for the School
Creating Readiness for Change
Balancing Process and Product
Deciding When To "Reinvent the Wheel"
20
20
22
24
26
5. Operating in an Organizational Context
30
30
32
Resolving Issues of Accountability and Responsibility
Seeking the Support of Like-Minded Colleagues
28
6. Distinguishing Features of Facilitative Leadership
35
An Expectation of Improvement Replaces Cynicism and Frustration 35
36
Power Is Shared, Not Granted
37
The Goal Is Not Democracy, but Improvement
Bibliography
39
Introduction: Reconstructing
the Role of the Principal
The role of leader and the expectations for those who assume leadership positions are changing as our society changes. Many forces are converging to alter the ways those in positions of power interact with other members
of an organization. In the private and public sectors, the roles played by
familiar institutions are being questioned.
It is clear that organizations must be able to adapt rapidly to meet the
changing needs of their clients as well as to respond to changes in the external environment. Many large, complex organizations have lost this ability.
They are focused on their own survival, not driven by a clear set of goals or
mission. Large companies such as General Motors, IBM, and Sears have
suffered massive financial losses and downscaled dramatically. They are
trying to find their niche in a new world economy.
Government, too, has been subjected to change. As increases in real
income have slowed and demands for services have accelerated, taxpayers
are less willing to pay more when it is often unclear what they are getting for
their money. In one state after another, voters have limited the ability of
government to raise revenues, thereby putting pressure on government to
rethink the way it does business.
Organizational leaders who have been successful in adapting to this
changing environment have done so by using several tactics (Peters 1987,
Peters and Austin 1985, Peters and Waterman 1982). They have moved
decision-making closer *a the "front lines." They have listened to their clients
or customers and invested in people as a primary resource. These leaders
have come to recognize that successful organizations of the future must have
a work force that understands organizational goals and can work relatively
independently to achieve these goals.
Workers must have a stake in the success, not just the survival, of the
organization. They must be able to make key decisions and to work across
traditional lines of authority and hierarchy to solve problems and address
customer and client needs. Control is far less important than facilitation;
leaders attempt to create and nurture the conditions and structures within
which employees can maximize their attainment of goals and objectives that
are central to the organization's success.
This reshaping of leadership has clear implications for the
principalship. For at least the past seventy years, most schools have functioned as structured bureaucracies, with clear division of labor, specialization, lines of authority, rules, and roles. The principal's role was relatively
clear. Principals were charged with maintaining the structure so the "machine" would produce the desired outputswell-educated students. Schools
were not expected to adapt rapidly. In fact their clientsthe studentswere
the ones expected to adapt. Teachers were conditioned to "follow orders,"
whether in the form of district directives or the district contract. Fulfilling the
role requirements (having a lesson plan, keeping the class under control,
turning in paperwork as requested, following the district curriculum) was
equated with successful teaching. When the desired results were not
achieved, the client was generally viewed as the problem.
The movement toward clearly stated standards, whether at the national
or state level, is the latest indicator of a shift from emphasizing educational
processes to expecting student performance. Longstanding structures of
schooling and methods of school management are unlikely to result in the
types of improvement that are expected. Increasingly, principals are being
held accountable for improved student learning as gauged in relation to
standards.
Simultaneously, over the past twenty years teachers have gained
considerable power as their average level of education and age have increased. Teachers no longer enter the profession directly out of college, teach
several years, leave to raise a family, then return when their children are
grown. Most are career professionals. Increasingly, they possess master's
degrees, specialized licenses, certificates, and endorsements; many have
worked toward doctoral degrees. They are older, more secure, and less
susceptible to coercion or threat. They have strong contracts that protect their
rights. These teachers function within their classrooms more as "executives"
than "workers" (Shedd and Bacharach 1991). They make major decisions
regarding the nature and content of schooling.
Murphy and Beck (1994) summarize the convergence of these various
forces and their implications for school leaders:
Principals must fmd their authority in their personal, interpersonal,
and professional competencies, not in formal positions; they must
cultivate collegiality, cooperation, and shared commitments among all
2
10
with whom they work. In addition, they must be cognizant of the fact
that changes between the school and its environment are imminent.
Historically ingrained notions of schools as sheltered monopolies or
delivery systems are breaking down under the incursions of a market
philosophy into education. Furthermore, the idea that the business of
schools is strictly and exclusively academic is crumbling as problems
related to poverty, injustice, violence, lack of adequate health care,
and the like take center stage in many educational institutions
(Crowson and Boyd, 1993). As we move toward the 21st century,
principals must be able to forge partnerships and build strategic
alliances with parents, with businesses, and with social service
agencies. They must lead in efforts to coordinate the energy and work
of all stakeholders so that all children in their schools are well served.
(p. 15)
How can principals function successfully in environments where
accountability expectations are increasing, but where the use of direct authority may not achieve the desired results? In other words, how can principals
improve the performance of the system without resorting to mandates or
orders? Many managers within and outside of education have found this to
be an extremely frustrating dilemma. At the same time, numerous sources
indicate that an alternative form of leadership can address these seemingly
contradictory conditions. Many names have been given to this form of
leadership. We use the term facilitative leadership to describe the ability to
lead without controlling, while making it easier for everyone in the organization to achieve agreed-upon goals.
Chapter 1
What Is Facilitative
Leadership?
The language of facilitative leadership itself is evolving and is both
imprecise and difficult to operationalize. We have adapted Dunlap and
Goldman's (1991) description of facilitative power as a starting point for our
definition of facilitative leadership, which we define as the behaviors that
enhance the collective ability of a school to adapt, solve problems, and
improve performance. Facilitative leadership includes behaviors that help the
organization achieve shared, negotiated, or complementary goals.
Power and Leadership
The relationship between power and leadership should be carefully
considered. Facilitative power assumes the rather free movement of energy
within the system; power flows much like electricity in a circuit, or impulses
in the nervous system. It is possible to direct the flow, but it is not possible to
control it, since there are multiple control points and pathways through which
energy might flow. Similarly, it is futile to attempt to control the flow of
power within a highly complex system like a school; one individual cannot
singlehandedly monitor all the ways in which power affects or modifies
behaviors and actions among all the individuals in an organization. Leaders
can only hope to understand the flow of power and, where appropriate, direct
it in ways that facilitate organizational function and individual efficacy. Once
again, this assumes the existence of some ordering force, something that
creates some overarching sense of direction or purpose as each individual
interacts with the power flow.
Leithwood (1992), citing Ouchi's (1981) work on organizations,
suggests there is a shift from Type A toward Type Z organizations. This shift
4
12
has given rise to a clearer conceptualization of facilitative power and a
greater appreciation of its potential value:
Type A organizations,.very useful for some situations and tasks,
centralize control and maintain differences in status between workers
and managers and among levels of management; they also rely on topdown decision processes. Such organizations, which include the
traditional school, are based on "competitive" (Roberts 1986) or "topdown" (Dunlap and Goldman 1991) power. This is the power to
controlto control the selection of new employees, the allocation of
resources, and the focus for professional development. One cannot do
away with this form of power without losing one's share. It is a zerosum gain.
In contrast, Type Z organizations rely on strong cultures to influence
employees' directions and reduce differences in the status of organizational members. Type Z organizations emphasize participative decision-making as much as possible. They are based on a radically
different form of power that is "consensual" and "facilitative" in
naturea form of power manifested through other people, not over
other people. Such power arises, for example, when teachers are
helped to find greater meaning in their work, to rlf3zt higher-level
needs through their work, and to develop enhanced instructional
capacities. Facilitative power arises also as school staff members learn
how to make the most of their collective capacities in solving school
problems. This form of power is unlimited, practically speaking, and
substantially enhances the productivity of the school on behalf of its
students. While most schools rely on both top-down and facilitative
forms of power, finding the right balance is the problem. For schools
that are restructuring, moving closer to the facilitative end of the
power continuum will usually solve this problem. (p. 9)
Pseudo-Facilitative Leadership
Facilitative leadership is potentially more problematic and contradictory than it may first seem or than its proponents contend. Once an individual
identifies herself as the leader, there is a tendency to assume entitlement
(duty, obligation) to manipulate the power flow. In environments that are
highly transactional, with little overall focus or purpose, the rhetoric of
facilitation can be used as a rationalization for subtle manipulation or worse.
Transactional leadership involves recognizing what needs to be done
to achieve specific goals or tasks and securing agreements to do so. Such
agreements are often achieved by an exchange, tacit or otherwise, between
the leader and organizational members of something valued by either or both.
The exchange may be intangible (such as recognition or praise) or tangible
(resources or desired assignment).
5
13
Transactional leadership is important for maintaining organizational
functioning and can build trust and enhance motivation. However, the individual organizational members fail to recognize how their behavior contributes to organizational goals; they only view their behavior in relation to the
transactions with the leader. Organizational members focus on the leader's
"transaction list," the things the leader uses as bargaining chips and the areas
where bargaining can occur. This has the effect of fragmenting the organization and stifling the creation of common meaning, purposes, and goals.
There is the potential for leaders to use the language of facilitative
leadership in a transactional environment to control certain key elements of
the power flow (such as information) in ways that deprive other
orgainzational members from influencing and controlling their own work
environment and enhancing their efficacy. However, since the trappings of
authoritarian leadership are not present, the pseudo-facilitative leader can be
much more difficult to detect or to be held accountable for her or his behavior. There are right and wrong ways to exercise facilitative leadership, and
there arc types of environments that can enhance or hinder its success.
Marks of Genuine Facilitative Leadership
Facilitative leadership includes strategies and attitudes as well.
Goldman, Dunlap, and Conley (1993) suggest that principals' facilitative
behavior is demonstrated by the following behaviors:
1.
creatively overcoming resource constraints of time, funds,
and information
2. maximizing human resource synergy by building teams with
diverse skills and interpersonal chemistry
3. maintaining sufficient awareness of staff activities to provide
feedback, coordination, and conflict management
4. spanning boundaries to create intraschool and community
networks that provide recognition
5. practicing collaborative politics that emphasize one-on-one
conversation rather than large meetings
6. through these behaviors, modeling and embodying the
school's vision
Principals use these tactics to solve student learning problems, create an
environment for school restructuring, and build staff instructional and leadership capabilities.
Other scholars have reached similar conclusions. Leithwood (1992)
6
14
embeds facilitative power within the concept of transformational leadership.
He asserts that administrators must be ready to abandon transactional (control-oriented) and instructional leadership modes and use facilitative power if
they are going to attempt fundamental change in their schools. Although
consensus has not been reached regarding what elements define transformational leadership, it can be conceptualized as a series of behaviors and practices exhibited by leaders that increase staff commitment to organizational
success. Leaders enhance staff commitment by creating greater alignment
between individual self-concept and values and organizational vision or
mission.
Leithwood and others (1994), based on a modification of a review by
Podsakoff and others (1990), offer seven dimensions of transformational
leadership:
Identifying and articulating a vision
Fostering the acceptance of group goals
Providing individualized support
Intellectual stimulation
Providing an appropriate model
High performance expectations
Contingent reward
Principal as Enabler
Prestine (1991) uses the language of principal as "enabler." She found
that principals in four schools participating in the Coalition of Essential
Schools had significant new demands put upon them in three categories:
sharing power, participation without domination, and facilitation. Her case
study of one of these schools (Prestine 1994) found three dimensions that
"give substance to the critical and reciprocal linkages between the role of the
principal and the development of new patterns and understandings" necessary for systemic educational reform:
1.
Advocating Change by Modeling Consistency. The responsibility
for maintaining congruence with and consistency to new
understandings rests largely with the principal. In essence, the
principal must serve as the repository of the shared values and
common imperatives that constitute the new order of
understandings and processes....
Through consistently and continually exhibiting the expectations
embodied in the shared beliefs, the principal provides a model, a
touchstone for expectations, that sets the pattern of interactions
and processes for the whole school. (p. 147)
2. Noticing Opportunities for Change. [lit seems likely that a certain
amount of discomfort or stress is necessary for change to occur....
The principal's position at the center of the web of relationships in
the school affords the opportunity to notice those things that may
serve as catalysts for change.... Unappreciated and certainly
underused, the reflective process of noticing things, testing these
against the shared beliefs, and then figuring out what should be
done appears to be critical. It allows the principal to make
opportunistic use of events and happenings, to shape processes,
and to address problems. (pp. 147, 148)
3. Blending Authenticity and Flexibility. Principals whose personal
values, beliefs, and aspirations for their schools are consistent,
coherent, and reflected in all they say and do achieve a credibility
and authenticity that can inspire trust and confidence....
Establishment of this authenticity is not based on manipulation of
subordinates or even on traditional means of motivation. Rather it
must spring from a genuine commitment to align beliefs, actions,
and words.
However,... this authenticity requirement must be counterbalanced
with an ability to be comfortable with multiple inconsistencies
and ambiguities that call for flexibility. While authenticity
suggests a certain firmness of conviction and clarity of
understandings, this must be tempered by the realities of
uncertainty inherent in participatory shared structures and
processes. At both the organizational and the individual levels,
clarity of understanding is necessary but without a rigid precision
that would stifle the flexibility required. The responsibility for
maintaining this delicate balance rests primarily with the
principal. (pp. 148-149)
Prestine argues that rather than redefining the principal's role, "it is a
new conception, a turning of the role of principal 90 degrees from everywhere." She finds much that is problematic and difficult to understand about
this new role conception. The role
is difficult to discern as it is defined by nuances that are subtle,
unarticulated, and embedded in context-specific organizational
processes and shared understandings. Understandings of this new rose
appear to exist, for the most part, as tacit understandings. There is an
innate recognition, but this remains largely unarticulated....
Even more seriously, there is no adequate language for examining ar,s1
discussing that which has largely been unexamined and undiscussed
in traditional understandings. If this new role of the principal is not
the same thing as it was, how do we think about what it is? If this new
role is not doing what was done, how do we talk about what this is?
(p. 150)
Peterson (1989) and Kleine-Kracht (1993) use the expression "indirect
8
16
leadership" to describe principals' efforts to facilitate leadership in teachers
as opposed to working directly on tasks or projects. Glickman (1989) describes the principal as "not... the sole instructional leader but rather as the
leader of instructional leaders." Schools are places where "teachers are
jointly responsible for the supervision of instructional tasks..., staff development, curriculum development, group development, and action research" (p.
6). Facilitative leadership is compatible with, and may be necessary for,
sustaining the type of professionalism, moral authority, and community that
Sergiovanni believes may ultimately make formal leadership roles redundant
and unnecessary (Muncey and McQuillan 1993).
Potential Problems
Facilitative leadership, while a tantalizing concept for students of the
principalship and an attractive model for principals, encompasses a set of
tensions alluded to, but not yet fully explored, in the literature. Louis and
Miles (1990) caution that principals need "to take active initiative without
shutting others outand to support others' initiative without becoming
maternal/patemal." Their research suggests that principals using facilitative
leadership, especially ones linking those behaviors to the school improvement or restructuring process, must expend considerable energy managing
the school's need for a coherent vision and direction, while sustaining staff
commitment, creativity, and leadership. The balance is potentially unstable
and fragile, especially if projected over the long term.
Similarly, Smylie and Brownlee-Conyers (1992) argue that these
changes, and facilitative leadership itself, generate ambiguity because principals and teachers struggle to manage transitions in their mutual role expectations. They suggest that uncertainty creates an initial inward focus on one's
own role, and that this retards the evolution of a shared task orientation that
characterizes the positive reports about facilitative leadership.
Glickman (1990) notes the potential problems of high expectations and
high energy created by facilitative leadership. Excitement and anxiety go
together. Facilitative leadership has often been tied to school restructuring,
and the simultaneous change in leadership behaviors and organizational
structures may open a school to intensified internal and external criticism.
The excitement and anxiety that surround such significant changes may
exacerbate one another.
Facilitative Leadership and Democratic Leadership
Emerging forms of leadership that are not domination-oriented may
not necessarily be democratic leadership. We often think of leadership along
9
17
a continuum, from highly controlling to highly democratic. However,. reports
of facilitative models of leadership in practice tend to describe participation
in decision - making that is focused on enhancing teacher efficacy and improving organizational effectiveness, not on the more general goal of creating
a community where all decisions are made by the group.
This lack of a fundamental orientation toward democratic decisionmaking as a desirable end in itself can cause facilitative leadership to become
manipulative, or worse. In fact, Blase (1993) is critical of leadership activities directed from the center, implying that they are not facilitative. He
suggests that some behaviors identified as "facilitative leadership" actually
reflect a control orientation. True involvement in decision-making, argues
Blase, is best achieved through informal means and through formal committees and team structures that limit the capacity of the leader to control or
manipulate. These critiques suggest that the concept of facilitative leadership
is complex, and that its nature and consequences, both positive and negative,
have yet to be exhaustively analyzed.
S
10
Chapter 2
Background to the Study
Our interest in this evolving conception of leadership stems from our
observations that restructuring requires principals and staff members to
rethink and reorganize deeply internalized beliefs and habits about teaching
and learning, governance, and collaboration and participation. Because it
helps the principal and staff manage the interpersonal dynamics, ambiguity,
and fragmentation that accompany systemic change, facilitative leadership
can make a major contribution to school restructuring.
We have reported upon its potentially positive effects in our own
recent writing (Conley 1991; Conley, Dunlap, and Goldman 1992; Dunlap
and Goldman 1991; Goldman and others 1993). However, closer examination raises enough issues to suggest that facilitative leadership is neither a
quick fix nor a complete answer.
This Bulletin is designed to examine and promote understanding of
both the poter :.lilies and contradictions we have observed when facilitative
leadership is exercised, and to provide some examples of the types of behaviors that constitute this form of leadership. We frame our observations in the
form of ten propositions. The propositions are intended to be primarily
descriptive and interpretive, not judgmental.
These propositions are drawn from findings and interpretations originating from three sources: (1) our 1991-1993 studies of nine Oregon schools
that were members of the Oregon Network, a federally funded grant designed
to enable schools to take the "next step" in school restructuring; (2) earlier
research we conducted with Oregon schools (Conley 1991), and (3) observations of other researchers studying the interaction between leadership and
restructuring. We begin with a brief explanation of the Oregon Network and
then present the ten propositions.
The Oregon Network was funded under a grant from the U.S. Department of
Education, Secretary's Fund for Innovation in Education, grant #R215E10212.
11
19
The Oregon Network
Some background information: on the sites we studied may provide a
clearer picture of the environments that served as sources for the primary
data from which we derived the ten propositions. All nine sites had a history
of school-improvement efforts. None was a highly troubled innercity school,
though two were located in central-city neighborhoods. Most have a sizeable
population of students from disadvantaged environments.
No sites are in exclusively upper-middle-class suburbs or towns, but
several have significant numbers of students from relatively privileged
socioeconomic backgrounds. Per-pupil funding at each site is very close to
statewide means. Administrators at all these schoolsthree elementary
schools, two middle schools, three high schools, and one K-12 alternative
learning centerhave been attempting to employ more facilitative forms of
leadership to effect school restructuring.
We collected our data through extensive formal interviews, surveys,
observations, and documentary data gathered at the nine schools largely
between 1991 and 1993 (Merwin 1993, Rusch 1992). Some of the data have
been reported in an article describing the relationship between facilitative
power and nonstandardized solutions for school restructuring (Goldman and
others 1993).
Ten Propositions
We present our findings in the form of ten propositions, general
descriptive statements that suggest both how facilitative leadership looks and
the issues involved in its use. The chapters that follow contain a brief discussion of each proposition, its meaning, some examples, and possible implications of it. These propositions help identify the strengths and limitations of
the concept of facilitative leadership. Furthermore, these propositions help
distinguish and describe the interactions among various organizational and
system functions that result from altered conceptions of leadership and
changed leadership behaviors.
We have grouped the ten propositions under three broad headings
Creating and Managing Meaning, Facilitating the Process, and Operating in
an Organizational Contextthat are the titles of the next three chapters.
12
20
Chapter 3
Creating and Managing
Meaning
Schools are complex systems, bounded by day-to-day and year-to-year
habits and routines. Teachers become very good at most of what they do,
refining and improving instructional and assessment activities, occasionally
changing which grade level or which subjects they teach and, more rarely,
moving from one classroom or school to the next. Although from time to
time most question their own effectiveness and that of the school, few doubt
that they are doing a good job and making steady improvements. These
views are strongly held and have deep meanings for most teachers. What
they expect, or at least hope for, from their leaders is a support structure that
will both provide resources and buffer them from the environmentdifficult
children and difficult parents especiallyso they can get on with their jobs.
Facilitative leaders are aware of these beliefs and norms, but they do a
great deal more to cause teachers to examine their assumptions and change
their practices. They nurture a new set of symbols and meanings, ones that
support broader, more collaborative change, risk-taking, and a redefinition of
individual and collective goals and assumptions. They create both the illusion
and the reality of motion, of positive change that, despite uncertainties, leads
to a school that better serves the children who attend it.
Creating new meanings is especially challenging because the new
meanings co-exist with the old, honoring the staff as committed professionals
who continue contributing to a successful school while building upon and
reconfiguring the present structures of curriculum and instruction. The
process generates tensions, and even conflicts, which can seldom be hidden
and rarely resolved; rather, they become starting points for individual initiative and organizational creativity that can result in new and effective ways of
developing and delivering educational programs.
13
21
Creatively Using Tension
1. Facilitative leadership is primarily the creation and management of
tensions.
Tension exists in organizations, and all successful leaders must be able
to manage tension. Educators tend to view tension as something to be
avoided; schools often pursue congenial staff relations at the expense of
surfacing differences and diverse points of view. In such environments,
superficial harmony is attained by refraining from articulating organizational
goals and mission, by avoiding systematic review of practices, and by avoiding topics or situations that might create conflict.
Schools possessing superficial harmony are often characterized by
transactional or control-oriented leadership, where people get what they need
through private transactions with the leader. This method can constrain one
sort of tension, but creates its own set of sublimated stresses as the faculty
splinters into those who have access to resources, or who can transact successfully, and those who have less access to resources and successful transactions.
We do not necessarily equate tension creation with conflict. Tension
created by facilitative leaders has been described elsewhere as "dynamic
tension," or as the "discrepancy model." This approach seeks to create a gap
in perceptions of what is and what can or should be. Furthermore, tension is
creatively used to help support change by bringing people together who
might not otherwise interact, creating new leaders, infusing information into
the system, focusing on vision, encouraging others to take the initiative. The
facilitative leader, in fact, looks for opportunities to challenge the status quo
and disrupt the equilibrium that characterizes highly bureaucratic organizations. We list this dimension first because of its importance and its
overarching nature.
Principals Channel Faculty Energy Toward Common Goals
The principals we studied seemed to accept tension creation and
tension management as defining dimensions of their role. Rather than simply
reacting to organizational and environmental forces, they anticipated and
directed energy in ways that caused staff to engage more in processes that
could lead toward improved schooling. Directed tension creation may help
create a clear focus on common goals, standards for success, and accountability for performance. These principals did not simply establish a vision for
the school and then step back and expect the school to align its efforts to
achieve the vision. They powerfully engaged and directe:i faculty energy, at
times creating conflict or bringing it out into the open rather than suppressing
14
22
or sublimating it.
One elementary principal used a series of retreats to focus staff discussion on "ten commitments" that she believed were prerequisites to
schoolwide change. Tensions emerged. One staff member, in particular, felt
he would not be able to meet the new, higher expectations to which the staff
was committing. His public articulation of his fears and sense of inadequacy
challenged the principal and faculty to deal with the complex interplay
between supporting a colleague and improving the school program to meet
students' changing needs.
In one school, staff members agreed in principle to change, but they
could not agree on any specific program by which to accomplish it. The
principal worked to manage the tensions between his "pioneer" teachers, who
needed to move forward, and his "settlers," who were comfortable where
they were even though they acknowledged that change in the abstract was
desirable. This principal attempted to validate the pioneers without segregating them from the rest of the staff, so that their ideas would continue to
influence others. They were frustrated, however, that the principal could not
or would not move more decisively to persuade the rest of the faculty to act.
The principal tried several approaches designed to increase the settlers' acceptance of the inevitability and desirability of change. As a result of
a series of meetings the principal helped organize and support, all faculty
agreed that the school would adopt a "research and development" process
whereby new ideas and programs could be implemented and evaluated. This
strategy enabled the pioneers to continue their efforts, while the settlers had
to acknowledge that change would result from these activities. The effect
was to create tension that could be managed toward ends the faculty had
agreed were desirable.
Restructuring Creates Need for Conflict Managers
Peterson and Warren's School Restructuring Study (1994) included six
schools distributed across the United States that had been engaged in broad
restructuring for two or more years. Their findings tended to support Blase's
(1991) observation that greater decision-making opportunities create a more
highly charged political environment, which, in turn, creates more conflict.
Administrators must monitor the conflict and facilitate appropriate conflictmanagement strategies for themselves and others. For example, in one of the
schools they studied, the group of lead teachers became a governing coalition
that put itself in a position to force their views on their colleagues, which
increased the level of conflict.
Peterson and Warren cite additional examples from the other schools:
conflict over meeting conveners and agendas, conflict when a principal
15
23
vetoed an individual staffing assignment that had arisen directly from the
school mission, and conflict over who would make curriculum decisions.
Their general observations parallel ours:
With increased conflict we find principals pulled into the role of
mediator and conflict resolver, in part, because many have taken on
this role before and, perhaps more important, because there are few
formal mechanisms for resolving many of these conflicts and few
processes defined in the governance system (Peterson and Warren
1994, p. 233).
Hal linger and Hausman (1994, pp. 170-71) quote a principal who
gives a slightly different perspective on how administrators manage the
tension that accompanies restructuring:
[to move ahead is] an almost daily decision that you have to make
because you have to serve as both a catalyst and a facilitator, and
those are almost contradictory roles. A facilitator is a person who tries
to get everybody to move at a pace that people can handle and come
to some kind of consensus. At the same time, you like to put a little
fire under them and move a little faster.
None of the Oregon Network principals would disagree.
Negotiating a Shared Vision
2. Successful facilitative leadership encourages shared visions, but
there are tensions and tradeoffs that accompany the shift from bureaucracydriven to vision-driven systems.
"Vision" has been a much discussed and admired component of school
restructuring (Bredeson 1991, Conley and others 1992, Fullan and
Stiegelbauer 1991). The linkage of a vision-driven organization and facilitative leadership can disrupt both the bureaucratic structures and existing
culture of a school. Bureaucratic mechanisms generally provide a sense of
order and security, but they also tend to undermine members' belief in their
ability to solve their own problems or modify their work environment to
make it more effective.
Vision is one tool that helps to create a framework of meaning within
which each member of an organization can begin to examine her decisions
and behavior. A vision is not an end in itself, but the beginning of a continuous process of meaning-making focusing. Writing vision statements became
something of a fad when strategic planning was at its height of popularity.
Many schools posted vision statements on the wall, but few other tangible
results ensued. The visions we describe here, in contrast, were inextricably
bound to other organizational processes and were considered important by
faculty.
16
When schools have strong visions, participants may decide to disregard bureaucratic safeguards to pursue agreed-upon aims, but this creates
uncertainty and anxiety for those accustomed to operating within constrained
work environments. Often frustration is symptomatic of insecurity among
those members of the school who have been most successful playing under
the old, known, predictable rules and value system. In six network schools
where site councils or school-improvement committees were observed,
participants were initially skeptical that their decisions or input would be
respected. The actions of the principal helped overcome this skepticism and
build confidence In and commitment to teacher-led decision-making and
problem-solving.
A Focus on Vision Alters Patterns of Influence
Vision-driven systems allocate opportunities and influence to those
able to operationalize the vision. Both the principal and new teacher-led
decision-making structures will likely be more sympathetic to staff members
who can put ideas into practice. Those who previously had special access to
the principal are forced to compete for scarce resources publicly with others
who may be more able to adapt their practices to the new vision. This competition and resource shift can induce previously powerful or influential staff
members to resist the dismantling of bureaucratic structures and mechanisms.
When decision-making becomes more public, transactional leadership
is constrained, and so are those who function best using "squeaky wheel"
tactics. Such behaviors are less successful when decisions are made publicly
and when critics are expected to demonstrate how their criticism helps the
organization achieve its goals. In one network school, where all major budget
decisions were made by a committee of teachers and administrators, the
principal made the budget available for public review. The adoption process
effectively quelled allegations that the principal was using the budget to
promote his agenda or vision) independently.
In facilitative environments, policies and procedures do not necessarily
dominate and control behavior, since staff members are freer to be opportunistic and can create and communicate their own sense of meaning to one
another. Implementing a vision tends to debureaucratize the school, breaking
down the specialized expertisefor instance, in curriculum areas such as
science or language arts, or in special educationthat serves as a professional anchor for many teachers.
Prestine (1994) describes an Essential School, a junior high, in which
faculty wedded the desire to restructure with the desire to better meet specialeducation students' needs; they created core teams consisting of a teacher
from each of the following areas: mathematics, science, language arts, social
17
2;i
studies, and special education. The principal believed that "essential schools
are about making connections rather than making fragments. We want a
school in which personalization, rather than categorization, is the tool for
dealing with individual differences in the curriculum" (Prestine 1994, p.
130). But this freewheeling environment creates substantial disorientation
among teachers who want no part of the ambiguity that results. One superintendent described leadership in this situation as analogous to attempting to
coax caged birds to fly (Mitchell 1990).
This dilemma has placed a priority on school leaders' capacity for
communicating, reinforcing, and legitimating the school vision. Sergiovanni
(1992) believes this is a major element of "reinventing leadership."
Rosenblum, Louis, and Rossiniller (1994, pp. 106-7) quote a teacher who
explains how a new principal created suppori for change: A committee was
"set up so that there is more understanding as to the direction that we are
taking, the reason for being here, the goals for us personally as well as for the
school. We know what her vision is. We understand just where the school is
going."
Principals Let Go of Their Personal Visions
Ironically, sharing decision-making can be most problematic for
principals who have developed strong, clear, personal educational visions.
Two network principals mentioned the difficulty of "letting go" of, or modifying, their personal vision. It was very difficult for these principals to
relinquish deeply held beliefs. When asked how they reconciled their personal vision with the group's ability to define a collective vision, they indicated that they did many things to ensure the vision that emerged was one
with which they could live.
Part of the task cf facilitative leadership is to negotiate potential
conflicts between staff and self in ways that allow continued modeling of the
"shared" vision by the leader. In at least one network school, the principal's
vision was primarily intuitive, and the staff, not he. articulated a clear, focused vision. Meaning was negotiated and renegotiated more frequently
when the principal was not the primary interpreter of the vision.
Capitalizing on Opportunities for Change
3, Facilitative leadership, together with vision, generates and capitalizes on opportunities, but if not monitored and j 'cilitated systematically this
opportunism can lead to fragmentation and factionalization.
Vision-driven schools encourage individual innovation; they can also
become fragmented and factionalized. Legitimated by the vision, any teacher
18
26
can take the initiative to solve problems and develop programs. This can
cause schools to adapt more rapidly and to build a culture where change is an
accepted value, but it can also lead to rifts between those with strong commitment to the vision and those with lesser levels of attachment to it.
Multiple initiatives, even if consistent with one another and with the
school vision, create obligations and expectations that stretch both the collective energies of, and fragile relationships among, staff members. Successful
facilitative leaders strive to manage this fragmentation by supporting teachers
who are ready and eager to change, while trying to increase commitment and
blunt criticism from those who are less enthusiastic about the new vision.
Principals described teachers who took advantage of the opportunities
offered by a vision-driven environment as "thoroughbreds," "pioneers," and
"early adapters," and tended to give these teachers the leeway they needed.
These teachers pushed the vision to its limits and caused it to be redefined or
operationalized more quickly.
These teachers' initiative and the administrative support they received,
however, also stretched building norms and sometimes created a backlash.
The fact that their initiatives were vision-driven and sanctioned by a site
committee did not erase the dominant scarcity norm: While teachers may
have accepted having little themselves, professional jealously occurred when
certain teachers received special resources, opportunities, or recognition.
Moreover, some teachers initiated projects requiring collaboration, which
threatened the longstanding, powerful norm of teacher isolation as well.
In some schools, effectively functioning groups may move in opposite
directions, failing to capitalize on opportunities for collaboration and articulation between teams. One example is evident in Goldman's (1994) research
on schools implementing multiage, nongraded classroom structures and
developmentally appropriate instructional practice for first- and secondgraders. As one principal remarked,
I think in our effort to keep people involved, we have come up with
some systems where we have some teams that work on things and the
primary team often really does things on their own. The mixed age
class, and all the little bits and how it works came about separate from
the whole school, so there are parts of it that function separately. . . .
We have a 3-4-5 grade level team also which is working on the
reading writing connection and process writing and that sort of thing.
They also function somewhat separate from the other [i.e., 1-2) team.
And they also have sort of the specialist team; they function quite a bit
separately too. . . I think we have some overall goal= that are the glue
that holds us together, but I think in many cases what happens is done
somewhat separately from the whole group.
At least one Oregon Network principal ensured that every teacher had
a role in restructuring activities during the year, which helped reduce the
19
27
isolation. One significant project devised by this principal was a conference
held at the school. At the conference, which attracted several hundred teachers, all staff members were validated for having contributed to the vision, and
for being innovative educators. This inclusiveness seemed to generate greater
openness among faculty to each others' ideas, and reduce defensiveness
toward, or fear of, the accomplishments or ideas of colleagues. The conference helped manage factionalism by promoting involvement and constructive
interdependence among all staff members.
20
28
Chapter 4
Facilitating the Process
Schools don't know how to change very well or very quickly. Most
teachers and principals do not yet understand the dynamics of participatory
decision-making and its potentials and limitations. As a process, it is timeconsuming and is frequently more frustrating than exhilarating. Participation
can and should be guided by facilitative leaders, but it cannot really be
controlled without reverting to the top-down structures participative management is designed to replace. Principals can help the school leave the harbor,
and they can navigate, but they cannot actually pilot the ship itself They
must find others who can lead the process, and must help them develop the
skills they will need to enable the school to complete its voyage successfully.
Sometimes the principal isn't a key part of the process. As facilitative
leaders step back from being centrally involved in every decision, they
assume new roles. They can sound the alarm when the school loses focus on
its vision, or when people get so caught up in process that the process becomes an end rather than a means to an end. They can help others see when
there are so many new initiatives that the school loses programmatic coherence or when its resources get stretched too thinly. In short, the facilitative
principal creates and sustains conditions within which new leaders can
emerge, nurtures staff readiness, and is alert to the types of internal and
external contradictions that threaten the change process.
Developing New Leaders
4. Successful facilitative leadership requires constant development of
many new leaders and creation of new leadership structures. However, the
creation of new leaders and structures upsets the existing social hierarchy.
Teacher leadership is a critical component of educational restructuring.
There is substantial evidence that teachers must be involved for most changes
to succeed. One of the significant developments of the past decade has been
21
29
an increase in the legitimacy and frequency of teacher leadership roles. From
staff developer to lead teacher to peer coach to site-council chairperson,
numerous new opportunities for teacher leadership have come into being.
These roles allow teachers to be involved in shaping the goals and culture of
the school while retaining their ties to the classroom and the legitimacy
associated with such ties.
Principals Recruit Previously Uninvolved Teachers
Principals who had the greatest success employing facilitative leadership to bring about changes at the school level fostered the development of
leadership among a wide range of teachers. This leadership often came from
people who had never given any indication of being desirous or capable of
assuming a prominent leadership role.
In one school, leadership arose around technology, which was central
to the school's vision. One teacher with significant knowledge of technology
had displayed little interest in or aptitude for leadership. At a goal-setting
retreat he established a miniature electronic network that enabled participants
to work more effectively in a new, interconnected manner. The teacher's
expertise was validated, he personally contributed to the effectiveness of the
retreat, and he was subsequently viewed as a resource for reform efforts. He
went on to design an electronic presentation that explained the school's
restructuring program. This, in turn, endowed him with the role of spokesperson for the school, as he joined with colleagues to make presentations. His
commitment to change was strengthened, as was his role as a leader.
Principals also developed new leadership by tapping teachers who had
been previously excluded, sometimes because of their status. This might be a
younger teacher, a veteran teacher who had quietly withdrawn in reaction to
unsupportive colleagues, someone only recently arrived at the school, or, in
high schoolr, women who he, not been previously included in "the conversation." In her study of three network schools, Rusch (1992) concluded tiiat
"participatory practices in schools disrupt[ed] traditional hierarchies of
power and influence and create[d] new tensions among staff members" (p.
v). Muncey and McQuillan (1993) noted a similar phenomenon in their study
of the Coalition of Essential Schools.
There was a profusion of new governance structures and ad hoc committees at these schools, some of which were cumbersome, confusing, and
ineffectual. However, the new structures and committees had two significant
consequences: (1) They allowed many more teachers to develop leadership
skills, and (2) they provided some alternatives to long-time governance
structures without engaging in the costly political battles that often accompany the outright dismantling of an existing structure.
22
30
Facilitative Leaders Beget Other Facilitative Leaders
Facilitative leadership uy principals seemed to produce facilitative
behaviors by teacher leaders (see also Goldman and others 1993). Teachers
who took advantage of new leadership opportunities tended to involve others
rather than hoard personal power. There was less fear of being excluded from
important decisions, or of needing to guard one's resources. The collegiality
that occurred when many teachers interacted regularly and took leadership
roles both reduced fears and presented many more forums for concerns to be
raised. New leadership roles and structures were tools to solve problems, not
merely maintain the status quo.
The extent to which these changes test principals' commitment to new
ways of exercising leadership and power cannot be overstated. At one level,
the emergence of new leaders begins to redesign the school's traditional
hierarchy. One of Rosenblum and colleagues' (1994, p. 110) informants
explains the emerging style as follows: "Our principal selects key people,
empowers them, and invests them with resources and support."
But there's a reverse side to the process as well. Christensen (1992, p.
24) notes that "it's easy to set up a process, to delegate, but giving up control
is hard." Murphy (1994, pp. 25-30) summarizes several empirical studies of
restructuring schools that reiterate this point, but Prestine (1994, p. 134)
provides perhaps the best illustrative example. She describes a situation in
which a school's leadership team attempted to renew the school community's
commitment to authentic assessment, only to discover that "the principal,
with the endorsement and blessing of the faculty, had been assuming the
responsibility for their learning." According to the principal, "the model I set
up was exactly the kind of instruction I had never done as a teacherthat is,
I give you an assignment and you do exactly as I told you to do" (Prestine
1994, p. 134).
Spanning Boundaries to Secure Support for the School
5. In facilitative environments, principals span internal and external
boundaries by nurturing communication and information exchange, and by
identifying and exploiting opportunities. As more leaders emerge, however,
they may also be spanning boundaries independently and simultaneously.
Schools are rarely able to deal with the challenges posed by their ever
more needy student populations without the support of those outside the
school. Schools cannot function as closed systems, oblivious to the larger
environment. Parent involvement and coalitions with community agencies, in
particular, are critical. Relationships with other educational organizations and
businesses can be equally valuable. Schools are challenged to learn how to
23
31.
communicate across traditional boundaries, to take the initiative to reach out
to those outside the school. Such behavior is unheard of in some schools,
where systematic attempts have been made to keep the outside world at
"arm's length."
As power devolves within a facilitative environment, decision-making
and information flow become more complex. More people make more
decisions and take more initiative. Principals link internal groups, keeping
them informed of progress, checking on the overall climate in the building,
supporting new ideas, floating trial balloons, and working informally to
develop consensus. These activities are especially critical in preparing staff
to make decisions that require a strong faculty majority.
Principals Seek Not Power, But Resources
Facilitative principals span external boundaries as well, securing
resources for the school, initiating contacts, legitimizing the school's change
efforts with the community, sensing opposition and potentially controversial
areas, and identifying opportunities.
Oregon Network principals were not necessarily overtly political in
that they did not focus on accumulating personal political power either
among their fellow administrators or within the community's power structure. They worked more to procure "raw materials" for the school in the form
of money, equipment, human resources, opportunities, and ideas. It was
typical to hear one of these principals say, "We have a great opportunity
to..." in describing a recent contact. The principals made certain they had
some opportunities to be "out and about," making contacts, meeting with
people, and exploring possibilities. When principals were successful in
spanning boundaries, creating opportunities, and securing resources, few
complaints were voiced regarding their occasional absences from their school
site.
Teachers, Too, Become Entrepreneurs
The principal's entrepreneurial efforts may be adopted by staff members, as they, too, become more openly entrepreneurial and attempt to secure
resources or develop programs that span organizational boundaries. Schools
with facilitative environments seem especially able to exploit the educational
(and occasionally financial) benefits of partnerships. This sometimes leads to
situations in which the principal does not always know everything that is
going on, every contact that is being initiated, or the status of every program
within the building. In the network schools principals seemed to be comfortable with this ambiguity.
Of course, the potential always exists for those in this expanded pool
24
of leaders to overstep their authority and make unauthorized commitments.
In one case, a well-meaning parent made arrangements with a local business
to host a fundraising event designed to help support the school's reform
program. The principal received a call from an executive in the company
who was disturbed that the school had not followed proper procedures in
requesting the use of facilities.
In another example, a teacher who had become accustomed to solving
problems through her own initiative invited a local professor to serve as a
consultant to a district-level task force. Several hours after her initial contact
with the professor, she called him back to put the invitation on hold because
it had occurred to her that she did not have the authority to obligate district
money.
Creating Readiness for Change
6. Facilitative leaders understand the importance of creating readiness for change. Principals continue to play a pivotal role in deciding when
to act, since total readiness is never achieved.
Readiness for change is an often overlooked dimension of school
improvement and restructuring. It may be considered a stage through which
everyone passes, never to return. Tools for gauging faculty attitude toward a
particular innovation, like the Concerns-Based Adoption Model, may inadvertently create the impression that readiness for change is accomplished
when everyone has passed through the awareness, informational, and perhaps personal stages of concern. While the developers of CBAM did not
intend for such an interpretation to be made, it may occur nonetheless.
Individuals Must Conclude a Change Is Necessary
In reality, readiness tends to be a fluid rather than a fixed variable.
Individuals possess varying degrees of readiness based on a complex set of
factors, including their recent experiences with or perceptions of any particular proposed changes, and their sense of their peers' and reference group's
attitude toward the change.
Readiness based on a transactional relationship is particularly subject
to such shifts, since the individual has been conditioned to scan the environment to determine which behaviors can be negotiated. True readiness for
change is much more difficult to achieve because it emanates from an individual reaching the conclusion that a particular change is necessary and
valuable. Furthermore, the individual must understand the rationale for the
change both in terms of the organization's needs and personal impact.
25
33
Far too many improvement and restructuring projects are built upon
false consensus and superficial readiness. Many of those agreeing to the
program, method, or structure under consideration are not cognizant of the
psychological framework that underlies the rationale for the change and may
lack an awareness of the personal sacrifice necessary to make the new approach succeed. There is considerable evidence nationally of this occurring at
various schools engaged in restructuring (Berends and King 1994, Muncey
and McQuillan 1993, Prager 1992).
Principals often have to keep the school moving when momentum or
energy flags. As once principal noted, "Much of the reason we weren't
getting anywhere with the assessment issue had to do with complacency. We
were real smug about having made the changes in the schedule, the structural
changes that gave us a lot of positive feedback. So we were becoming increasingly unwilling to take risks" (Prestine 1994, p. 132).
Principals Build Readiness Through Variety of Strategies
One consistent theme that emerged while studying the Oregon Network principals was their role in creating readiness for change in their buildings. They listened carefully and observed frequently so they could regularly
assess the staff's willingness to change and determine how to motivate staff
to build the psychological framework necessary for large-scale personal
change.
Most of the principals we observed used a variety of formal and
informl strategies to build readiness. Professional conferences and visits to
other school sites served as important tools to expose more teachers to new
ideas. Generally teams would consist of a carefully selected blend of true
believers, fence-sitters, and skeptics. These teams were frequently charged
with synthesizing the information they were receiving and planning how they
would report to the faculty on their findings. They took seriously their job of
identifying and analyzing best practices, since they believed their recommendations would be carefully reviewed and could eventually be implemented by
their colleagues. This also enhanced group solidarity and allowed them to
appreciate one another's point of view.
Some principals also read voraciously; others did not appear to do so.
In nearly evcry case, however, they valued articles, books, and other sources
of relevant written material, whether discovered by them or brought to their
attention by staff. They either copied the best of the materials or alerted staff
to their availability. Principals found ways to create discussion and share
ideas among the faculty to enhance the sense of intellectual ferment and to
challenge staff members who held more static world views.
These principals used data to help make decision-making more inclu26
3.1
sive. One high school had a well-developed set of data that was very easy to
read and contained information to which the staff could refer as they considered what improvements were needed next. With these kinds of materials at
hand, it became both easier and more logical to turn decision-making over to
teachers. Significantly, teachers in this school came to expect, and when
necessary to demand, data to aid them in making decisions. Staff expected
new programs to collect data to determine effectiveness and to make
midcourse adjustments.
Attention to readiness did not necessarily eliminate conflict once it
was time to act. Facilitative principals were still called upon to move the
change agenda forward when further readiness activities were unlikely to
yield results. Knowing when continued pursuit of readiness would be only
marginally useful was more an artistic than a scientific decision for these
principals. They could not always articulate how they knew when to encourage action. When pressed, they said they followed their instincts. It should
also be noted that their instincts were not infallible.
Balancing Process and Product
7. Successful facilitative leaders balance process and product, activity
and action. An excessive emphasis on process as an end in itself can become
dangerously addictive.
Educational organizations are noted for the amount of process in
which they engage on almost every issue. Part of the need to engage in
process flows from the role of schools as public agencies that embody community values. As such, most actions reflect value positions. A company may
decide to close a factory because it is losing money; when a school is to be
closed, it is necessary to conduct meetings, gather data, consider and revise
plans, and in the end perhaps even abandon the proposed closure. Many in
the private sector are driven to distraction by this seeming fascination with
"process." They ask, Why can't schools simply make decisions and move
on?
As the goals for education continue to be redefined, and as educational
practices and structures are then subjected to closer scrutiny, more and more
processes are utilized. There are several reasons for this. As the educational
level of the general population and of teachers increases, more people expect
to be involved in decisions that affect them. Furthermore, there has been a
general decrease in the acceptance of authority and the infallibility of leaders
over the past forty years.
Many decisions that might have been made by key administrators in
the 1950s, such as organizational goals, are now in the public domain. The
27
35
advent of strategic planning in school districts over the past decade is only
one example of a complex, time-consuming process that involves many
people in the decision-making process. Most school-improvement programs
utilize extensive, complex processes requiring many people's involvement
and participation, and numerous steps are required before a decision is
reached.
Leaders Avoid Making Process an End in Itself
Although this emphasis on process appears to be essential, there is the
danger that it will become addictive. Some administrators come to see processes as ends in themselves. A frequently heard expression indicates this
attitude: "The process was more important than the product." While this
statement is certainly justified in many situations, there is a danger in moving
from process to process, with everyone feeling good about their participation
and nothing happening as a result. Facilitative leaders employ process constructively, aware of the dangers of process as an end in itself.
Principals in network schools understood the value of process. All
utilized retreats, ad hoc task forces or committees, early release days, and
other mechanisms to involve all faculty in discussion, dialogue, analysis, and
planning. Most used outside consultants as well. Consultants made presentations, reviewed plans, resolved conflicts, recommended new structures,
gathered data, facilitated group goal-setting, and taught others to do these
tasks.
Teachers in these schools commented on the value of these processes,
of having the time to talk with one another, to get the "big picture," to think,
dream, analyze, design. Many came to enjoy the spirited interchange that
often accompanied such activities. These processes were valuable "products"
in and of themselves; they helped establish an environment within which it
was possible to initiate substantive change.
Almost all the principals we studied were skilled in moving beyond
process to product. They established the importance of results as well as
activity. The net effect was to raise the level of concern and interest surrounding most "processes," such as planning or goal-setting. This gave any
process they employed meaning and value, since participants were convinced
something would result from it. Everyone wanted to be involved and to
contribute.
The schools developed mechanisms to communicate about and examine their vision and goals regularly. Most had some form of retreat, either onor off-site, once or twice a year, combined with opportunities throughout the
year for extended discussion among staff. These sessions allowed for the
creation, clarification, and recalibration of shared meaning. There was an
28
36
almost palpable sense of expectation that accompanied retreats, work groups,
study committees, and other settings charged with making recommendations.
Those involved took their work seriously. The principal helped established
these norms and expectations, and followed through by implementing decisions or recommendations that resulted.
Use of Consensus Varies
The schools we studied all employed some form of consensus in their
decision-making. However, both the forms and the underlying definition of
consensus varied greatly from site to site. The more effective principals were
able to shift the purpose of consensus from reaction to action. Consensus was
employed primarily to affirm decisions and agreements already negotiated
through a variety of mechanisms, yet in a few schools the consensus requirement served primarily as a blocking mechanism.
In several of the network schools consensus had symbolic as well as
political import, serving as the means by which faculty affirmed decisions
already reached in committees or informal interactions. This need for extensive informal involvement and ongoing modification of major change proposals resulted in slow movement initially, but once an agreement was
affirmed through consensus, the school was able to move ahead relatively
quickly. Agreement was more likely to be permanent than perfunctory.
At times, however, the commitment to consensus led to inaction or
worse. In at least one school, the principal felt it was manipulative to lobby
informally or negotiate before decisions were made by the faculty as a whole.
A group of teachers realized the principal's stance enabled them to block any
proposal by simply refusing to participate prior to the final decision. Therefore, they did not engage in informal negotiations or modifications of major
proposals. There were no mechanisms to force their involvement or to require them to take responsibility for their actions. They simply waited for the
call to consensus, then refused to agree.
The principal recognized the problem and started over. First, he obtained agreement on a new definition of consensus and established new rules
to govern the consensus process. Next, he made sure all staff members were
surveyed and interviewed by teacher leaders before important decisions were
made. He helped teachers organize "key communicator" networks, through
which supporters and opponents could talk to one another informally before
confronting one another in public. Although the principal remained somewhat aloof, these communication efforts benefited from the institutional
legitimacy the principal's support gave them, and the revised decisionmaking process changed the dynamic between those who were centrally
involved in change and those who were not.
29
37
Deciding When To 'Reinvent the Wheel'
8. It may be valuable to "reinvent the wheel" when the process creates
ownership of an idea, yet it is also energy intensive. Facilitative leaders
make careful choices regarding how the limited energy available is expended.
As noted above, the educators we studied attended many regional and
national meetings and read extensively. They frequently brought back ideas
or concepts that allowed (or caused) the faculty to create their own meaning
or program. However, there was only a finite amount of time and energy
available for staff to adapt ideas or develop programs. Principals had to have
a sense of when it was appropriate to adopt or adapt someone else's ideas as
opposed to developing programs or structures from scratch.
In one elementary school, the principal organized a two-day session
during which teachers and community members were to develop outcome
statements in literacy and numeracy. These statements were to serve as
frameworks by which the staff could come to understand outcome-based
education. Participants examined and even used outcomes already developed
by other districts and states, but synthesized and reconceptualized them in a
unique fashion.
These activities occurred at the same time the state department of
education was attempting to define statewide outcomes. Many schools had
decided to wait and simply adopt the state's final product. This principal,
however, felt that her staff would comprehend outcomes much more completely, take ownership of them, and transform their teaching to a much
greater degree if they first developed their own statements, then compared
them to the state's product. The two days devoted to developing outcomes
were not much more than other districts would have to allocate to explaining
the state's outcomes to their staff members, but the ownership and understanding that resulted at this school would enable staff to understand and
adapt state outcomes relatively easily.
Such positive results alert us to a dilemma. Facilitative leaders help the
staff decide when they should reinvent the wheel and when they should take
advantage of existing ideas, packages, curricula, and so forth. When do the
leader's decisions reflect those of the group, and when do they clarify conflicting priorities? Network principals made relatively few mistakes identifying school-site-development projects. This success helped uaff maintain a
willingness to explore and adapt new ideas and programs.
Chapter 5
Operating in an Organizational
Context
No school or school leader operates independently of the broader
administrative and governance systems that always influence school life.
Federal and state policies and regulations coupled with district policies and
oversight set contexts and limits for facilitative leadership. These forces are
generally relatively constraining, as state and district policy-makers tend to
prefer centralization and standardization over creative local solutions that
break away from existing policies and rules.
It is easier for states and districts to make school sites more accountable for improved student performance than it is to give schools the latitude
to redesign schooling so that the goal is actualized. Creativity, especially
when it results in demonstrated successes, can lead to recognition, which can
trigger professional jealousies. Teachers and administrators at schools that
are improving and being Enognizecl can easily come to feel isolated within
their own school districts. They need to be connected to others who are in
similar situations. Moreover, principals who exercise facilitative leadership
also help their staffs negotiate this complex and dangerous orgmizational
context; their experience in boundary-spanning becomes a precious resource
for leadership development.
Finally, there are expectations, especially for the principalship, that are
difficult to break down. Teachers, parents, central-office administrators, and
fellow principals inside the district expect the principal to be the primary
point of contact between the school and the world. This is often an important
part of how they and others define the job and it is a source of identity for
many principals. Facilitative leadership, by broadening the leadership function, challenges these assumptions about school management and trespasses
some long standing comfort zones.
31
39
Resolving Issues of Accountability and Responsibility
9. Unresolved questions concerning accountability continue to surround facilitative leadership as a method for making decisions and solving
problems for which parents, school boards, and community members expect
someone to be responsible.
The principals in our studies had not resolved accountability issues in
any systematic manner. This should be of zoncem to those considering
facilitative leadership and the emerging role of the facilitative principal. In
these schools, policies, goals, and procedures are being decided by faculty
members or committees, but principals retain responsibility for their implementation. This potential conflict of authority and responsibility has so tar
not been problematic. There appear to be several possible reasons for this.
Principals Support Faculty Decisions
First, all the decisions faculty members have made are or.t.3 the principals have been able to support. No principal was put in the position of being
asked to do something he or she felt was fundamentally bad for children or
for the school. One principal was implementing a discipline and tardy system
he believed treated only symptoms, not causes. Nevertheless, he felt obligated to implement it, since it resulted from one of the faculty's first applications of a new consensus process. He planned to collect data on the effectiveness of this system, compare it to the previous system, and share this information with faculty when appropriate. In this way he hoped to change their
attitudes over time.
Second, no decision involved a radical departure from existing practice, and all schools were showing improvement (or no decline) on traditional
measures of success. One high school decided to move to four ninety-minute
periods a day and to require all students to demonstrate mastery of certain
core skills before being allowed to move to the next level of the program. An
elementary school reorganized into "tribes" of one hundred students and four
teachers grades 1 to 5. While potentially controversial, such adaptations were
comprehensible to the community and consistent with less dramatic changes
the school had initiated previously. Dropout rates were stable or declining at
all high schools; one school had the highest standardized achievement test
scores in the state; and several others won state and national awards and
recognition.
Principal's Role Is Subject to Conflicting Expectations
Third, these districts held principals accountable almost exclusively
32
40
for managing schools, not for improving education or achieving goals. Since
all the principals except one were highly effective managers, they were able
to proceed with little interference or accountability. This is not likely to be
the case in other states such as Oregon, which is requiring much more detailed and public reporting of school goals, student performance, attendance
and dropout data, and other indicators of educational productivity and effectiveness.
Fourth, the school community still expects the principal to be visible,
not just as a figurehead but as the central activist. Although principals may
envision new dimensions of their role, the local public does not. A principal
interviewed by Hallinger and Hausman laments the misperception of roles
among members of his school's site committee: "While I'm probably a little
clearer in my role as a principal or building administrator, I don't think the
parent members or teacher members are at all clear what their responsibilities
are. . . . That should not be occurring 5 years after the inception" (1994, p.
164). Hallinger and Hausman studied a small relatively well-endowed district
in a suburb of New York and report that this problem gets reinforced when
there is teacher and parent turnover on the school council: "So what happens
is all the eyes will be in the center of the table; the [parents'] side will flow
constantly to the principal" (1994, p. 167).
As educational accountability demands increase, so will the pressure
on the principal to assume responsibility for school performance. This will
have interesting implications for facilitative leaders. It is worth adding
parenthetically that there is little evidence to suggest that highly directive
leaders will be any more successful than facilitative leaders in achieving the
level of improvement that will be necessary to satisfy the public in many
communities. Facilitative leadership may offer the best hope; however, issues
of accountability must be addressed in ways they have not been to date.
Seeking the Support of Like-Minded Colleagues
10. Facilitative leadership is still the exception in many school districts. Facilitative leaders need support to sustain their efforts and counteract isolation.
Facilitative Leaders Cope with Isolation from Other District
Administrators
The focus of the propositions up to this point has been on the behavior
of principals in the context of their school building. However, one of the
most consistent frustrations these principals had was their feeling of isolation
both as facilitative leaders and as change agents within their school district.
33
41
Many indicated they did not feel supported by the central administration and
fellow principals and could point to evidence that their efforts were being
undermined ai times.
All the network schools exist in a broader organizational context. They
are vulnerable at transition points if the district administration does not
understand or value this type of leadership. One school had four principals in
four years. The staff had to adapt to several principals who did not necessarily understand or value facilitative leadership. This constant readjustment
was made even more difficult for teachers because they were not involved in
the selection process.
This particular school had great difficulty sustaining a common vision
over time. Staff members had gained recognition and attention because of a
set of structural changes (an innovative schedule and the grouping of students
into learning teams) they had made several years before. Each successive
new principal wanted to roll back one or more of these structures as a way of
putting his "mark" on the school. These principal behaviors may have been
designed to demonstrate who was in charge and to send a message to teachers accustomed to being involved in making decisions and solving problems.
They indicated the central administration's apparent lack of understanding or
appreciation for the fragility of facilitative leadership.
This problem is national in scope, not just typical of Oregon schools.
Glickman, Allen, and Lunsford (1994, pp. 215-16) researched buildingdistrict relationships in the League of Professional Schools, a statewide
network in Georgia. They learned that many
principals work in local districts in which school boards and state
policy hold the principal legally responsible for what occurs in his or
her school; this has not changed. In most cases the districts and boards
have supported their principals' involving faculty in shared governance, but they have not changed board policies to make the governing group responsible for the school. As a result these principals have
had to consciously distribute their legal power and become an equal
vote among many, although the superintendent, the school board, and
the outside community will hold the principal chiefly, if not solely,
responsible for the successes or failures of the school.
Fellow Principals May View Facilitative Leaders with Suspicion
This lack of organizational support highlights one of the contradictions
of decentralized decision-making. While central administration works tentatively to devolve authority, some schools move very rapidly to enable staff to
take control of their professional environment and usher in its transformation.
Just as pioneering staff members may be perceived as threats by their peers,
some facilitative principals may be viewed with suspicion by their fellow
34
4''
administrators.
Schools that are able to move toward distinctive responses and adaptations develop what we have referred to elsewhere as nonstandardized solutions (Goldman and others 1993). Such solutions result in each school beginning to look different from others. While districts may in theory adopt the
rhetoric of decentralized decision-making, central administrators still may
find it difficult to accept schools that look different and to embrace change
models that involve teachers and community members in significant ways.
This should not be surprising since such approaches threaten the traditional
role of central administrators.
Network principals frequently found themselves caught between two
worlds. They were expected to bring about change and improvement but
were viewed with suspicion by their supervisors or peers when they "gave
away" too much authority or power to staff. It should be noted that there
were fellow administrators in each district who supported these facilitative
principals; sometimes it was even the superintendent. However the organizational culture as a whole did not necessarily support their efforts, which made
it more difficult for these principals to feel part of the school district or to
share their successes and frustrations openly.
Facilitative Leaders Draw Support from One Another
These principals repeatedly mentioned the value of the support network that a group of like-minded colleagues provided them. They brought
teams of teachers, parents, and support staff to network retreats. They sought
out each other socially and professionally. It was not unusual for high school
staff members to visit an elementary school in another district where they
would learn about a specific strategy, such as portfolio assessment. Elementary principals felt comfortable interacting with middle school and high
school principals. Their common link was their belief that staff members
should be involved in and have ownership of decisions that affected their
capacity to teach effectively.
35
43
Chapter 6
Distinguishing Features of
Facilitative Leadership
What distinguishes the Oregon Network schools from other neighboring schools? This chapter highlights three features that characterized schools
with facilitative leaders. Perhaps the key characteristic is a heightened sense
that all staff members in the school are both able and obligated to take control of their professional lives and work environment, that they can and must
make a difference in their school. The significance of this attitude has been
noted elsewhere (Rosenholtz 1991). In addition, these schools hold to a
distinctive conception of power and view shared decision-making not as an
end in itself but as a means to improved performance.
An Expectation of Improvement Replaces
Cynicism and Frustration
When facilitative leadership is successful, most members of the organization seem to hold a different psychological perspective regarding their
responsibility to participate in solutions and their capacity to solve problems.
Teachers, classified staff, and even parents and students expect to identify
problems, suggest solutions, and take the responsibility for improving the
conditions and products of their school. This occurs not as much through
political transactions as through negotiated shared meaning and values that
provide a framework for individual and collective action. Principals mediate
this proceis so that all the participants feel capable of creating the conditions
necessary for improved individual and collective performance.
This world view contrasts sharply with the view that predominates in
schools in which staff and community alike are cynical and frustrated, where
they look upon leaders primarily as scapegoats or objects of blame or derision,
36
44
and where the solution to any problem is always beyond their reach or ability to
influence. Unfortunately, this portrayal seems to describe far too many schools.
This profound sense of inability to affect one's work environment may
result from a combination of several mitigating factors, including highly
directive or political styles of
leadership; rigid bureaucratic
WAYS To MAKE THE TRANSITION TO
structures; diffuse accountFACILITATIVE LEADERSHIP
ability for performance; and
Not everyone is, has been, or can be a facilitative
contradictory educational
leader. Many administrators have been quite effective
policies that isolate and
using other leadership styles. Changing one's leaderfragment teaching and learnship style should be undertaken oily after careful
consideration and a clear sense of what is involved,
ing, thereby creating depenwhat will be lost, what will be gained, how much perdence on the formal leader.
sonal change is required. For those committed to such
a transformation (or evolution), the following suggestions can help ease the transition:
Begin with a thorough assessment of your current
leadershp style. Determine how you are perceived now
Power Is Shared,
Not Granted
by gathering data in the form of faculty members'
perceptions of your leadership style.
Assess the culture of your school. What are the
dominant norms, beliefs, values, interaction patterns?
How willing are faculty members to participate in deci-
sion-making? How skeptical will they be of such a
change?
Announce your intentions to change. Do not make
people guess what is going on, why you seem different.
This transition can be difficult, particularly for those who
have well-developed transactional relationships with
you.
Pick specific, concrete ways in which you can begin
to demonstrate more facilitative behaviors. Issues of
importance to teachers are a logical starting point.
Symbolic behavior comes tater. At first, substantive
change signals a new environment in which the energies and contributions of all are more egalitarian.
Ensure the first examples of facilitative leadership
are ones you can live with. Nothing would be worse than
to invite increased participation in decision-making rand
then reject the first fruits of such efforts.
Gauge the degree of congruence between your personal vision of education and that held by the faculty.
If the faculty lacks a vision, consider whether it would
be feasible to create organizational alignment around a
vision. Some challenges are more than you may want
to take on. A move to a new site may be the perfect time
to begin practicing a new leadership style.
Look for allies within your district and mambo a
support network outside of IL Are there other adminis-
trators who are attempting to employ a similar style?
Are there places where you can exchange Ideas and
experiences with like-minded colleagues?
37
We have avoided use
of the term empower in this
chapter because we understand the concept to mean
someone granting power to
someone else. This is not the
message we have sought to
communicate. Instead, we
have described environments
where power and leadership
are shared, where participants
would tend to reject the
notion of empowerment as
inadequate and excessively
narrow as a description of
their relationship to power
and influence in the school.
This distinction is
subtle and may be difficult to
grasp for many who are
striving to involve more
people in decision-making. It
is an important one, we
believe, since it goes to the
heart of one's conception of
45
power. Ha Binger and others (1991) and Bredeson (1991) both observed the
difficulty principals experienced as they viewed role change. Specifically,
principals were worried about losing control, giving up power.
The notion of "giving up" power, which is implied by empowerment,
may be very threatening to those who view power as an entity they are being
compelled to transfer. In fact, incremental shifts of power may be more
difficult for many administrators to accept than a new conception of their
relationship to power. Facilitative notions of leadership require a "letting go"
of the illusion of control, and an increasing belief that others can and will
function independently and successfully within a common framework of
expectations and accountability.
Empowerment often focuses on the negotiation of formal roles, structures, and procedures. While such issues must be addressed in any organization, a primary concern with governance, not improvement, may result in an
emphasis on working conditions of adults rather than student performance
and teacher efficacy. Formal structures exist to constrain abuses of power,
and to the degree that such constraint is needed within an organization, they
serve a useful purpose. However, the creation of these structures does not in
itself necessarily add to an organization's capacity to modify and improve its
practices.
The Goal Is Not Democracy, but Improvement
Facilitative leadership does not seem to have as its primary purpose
the enhancement of workplace democracy as an end in itself. Its focus in
practice is on improved performance of the work group and enhanced learning by students.
This focus on improvement rather than governance appears to be one
of the defining elements of this type of leadership. There is less concern with
developing and refining governance structures than with moving the organization forward, enhancing adaptability, solving problems, improving results.
Issues of power are processed through the lens of organizational effectiveness and student needs. Broad-based participation is achieved through a
variety of strategies, one of which may be formal democratic structures.
Is facilitative leadership the answer to all school-based problems? Can
this style of leadership be practiced by everyone? Is it realistic to expect all
schools to function in this manner? The answer to these questions is probably
no.
There are times in the life of some organizations when highly directive
leadership may be both necessary and desirable, at least for a period. It is
also likely that many principals will be unable to radically reshape beliefs
and behaviors developed over the course of a career. Some communities may
38
46
not be capable of exercising shared leadership without abusing the rights of
the minority and the disenfranchised. Some principals may confuse facilitative leadership with laissez-faire leadership.
There continue to be many unresolved questions and potential problems associated with the concept and practice of facilitative leadership. At
the same time, there is evidence that truly exceptional things can happen in
environments where facilitative leadership is exercised. And many more
schools and leaders may be challenged to perform exceptionally during the
period of rapid adaptation in which public education is currently engaged.
We believe facilitative leadership contributes to the capacity of schools to
meet this challenge.
Facilitating the Process
Schools don't know how to change very well or very quickly. Most
teachers and principals do not yet understand the dynamics of participatory
decision-making and its potentials and limitations. As a process, it is timeconsuming and is frequently more frustrating than exhilarating. Participation
can and should be guided by facilitative leaders, but it cannot really be
controlled without reverting to the top-down structures participative management is designed to replace. Principals can help the school leave the harbor,
and they can navigate, but they cannot actually pilot the ship itself. They
must find others who can lead the process, and must help them develop the
skills they will need to enable the school to complete its voyage successfully.
Sometimes the principal isn't a key part of the process. As facilitative
leaders step back from being centrally involved in every decision, they
assume new roles. They can sound the alarm when the school loses focus on
its vision, or when people get so caught up in process that the process becomes an end rather than a means to an end. They can help others see when
there are so many new initiatives that the school loses programmatic coherence or when its resources get stretched too thinly. In short, the facilitative
principal creates and sustain conditions where new leaders can emerge,
nurtures staff readiness, and is alert to the types of internal and external
contradictions that threaten the change process.
Operating in an Organizational Context
No school and no school leader operates independently of the broader
administrative and governance systems that always influence school life.
Federal and state policies and regulations coupled with district policies and
oversight set contexts and limits for facilitative leadership: These forces are
generally relatively constraining, as state and district policy makers tend to
39
Bibliography
Berends, M., & King, M. B. (1994). A description of restructuring in nationally
nominated schools: Legacy of the iron cage? Educational Policy, 8(1), 28-50.
Blase, J. (1991). The micropolitical perspective. In Blase, J. (Eds.), The politics of
life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation (pp. 1-18). Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: Sage Publications.
. (1993). The micropolitics of effective school-based leadership:
Teachers' perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29, 142-163.
Bredeson, P. (1991). "Letting Go of Outlived Professional Identities: A Study of
Role Transition for Principals in Restructured Schools." Paper presented at
the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago.
Christensen, G. (1992). "The Changing Role of the Administrator in an Accelerated
School." Paper presented at the annual conference of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April.
Conley, D. (1991). Lessons from laboratories in school restructuring and site-based
decision-making: Oregon's 2020 schools take control of their own reform.
OSSC Bulletin, 34(7). ED 343 263.
Conley, D., Dunlap, D., & Goldman, P. (1992). The "vision thing" and school
restructuring. OSSC Report, 32(2), 1-8. ED 343 246.
Crowson, R. L., & Boyd, W. L. (1993). Coordinated services for childem:
Designing arks for storms and seas unknown. American Journal of
Education, 101(2), 140-179. EJ 460 619.
Dunlap, D., & Goldman, P. (1991). Rethinking power in schools. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 27(1), 5-29, EJ 421 302.
Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd
ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. ED 354 588.
Glickman, C. (1989). Has Sam and Samantha's time come at last? Educational
Leadership, 46(8), 4-9. El 388 734.
(1990). Open accountability for the '90s: Between pillars. Educational
Leadership, 47(7), 38-42. El 405 190.
.
40
4S
Glickman, C. D., Allen, L. R., & Lunsford, B. F. (1994). Voices of principals from
democratically transformed schools. In Murphy, J. and K. S. Louis (Eds.),
Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transformational reform efforts
(pp. 203-218). Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications.
Goldman, P. (1994). Schools as "organizational brains": Lessons from a
restructured elementary school. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
Goldman, P., Dunlap, D., & Conley, D. (1993). Facilitative power and nonstandardized solutions to school site restructuring. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 29(1), 69-92. EJ 457 238.
Hallinger, P., & Hausman, C. (1994). From Attila the Hun to Mary had a little lamb:
Principal role ambiguity in restructured schools. In Murphy, J. and K. S.
Louis (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transformational
reform efforts. (pp. 154-176). Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Hallinger, P., Murphy, J., & Hausman, C. (1991, April). Restructaing schools:
Principals' perceptions of fundamental educational reform. Paper presented
at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago, April. 42 pages. ED 334 681.
Kleine-Kracht, P. (1993). Indirect instructional leadership: An administrator's
choice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(2), 187-212.
Leithwood, K. A. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership.
Educational Leadership, 49(5), 8-12. EJ 439 275.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Fernandez, A. (1994). Transformational leadership and
teachers' commitment to change. In Murphy, Joseph and Karen Seashore
Louis (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transformational
reform efforts. (pp. 77-98). Newbury Park, Calif.: Corwin Press.
Louis, K. S., & Miles, M. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works
and why. New York: Teachers College Press. ED 327 623.
Merwin, G. (1993). Facilitative power: Strategy for restructuring educational
leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.
Mitchell, J. (1990). Share the power. American School Board Journal, 177(1), 4243. EJ 402 323.
Muncey, D., & McQuillan, P. (1993). Preliminary findings from a five-year study of
the coalit: in of essential schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6) 486-489, EJ 457
284.
Murphy, J. (1994). Transformational change and the evolving role of the principal:
Early empirical evidence. In Murphy, J. and K. S. Louis (Eds.), Reshaping
the principalship: Insights from transformational reform efforts, (pp. 20-53),
Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Murphy, J., & Beck, L. (1994). Reconstructing the principalship: challenges and
possibilities. In Murphy, Joseph and Karen Seashore Lous (Eds.), Reshaping
the principalship: insights from transformational reform efforts. Thousand
Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z Reading. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
41
49
Peters, T. (1987). Thriving on chaos: Handbook for a management revolution. New
York: Harper and Row.
Peters, T., & Austin, N. (1985). A passion for excellence: The leadership difference.
New York: Random House.
Peters, T. 3., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Warner
Books.
Peterson, K. D. (1989). Secondary principals and instructional leadership:
Complexities in a diverse role. Madison, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Center for
Education gsearch. ED 305 718.
Peterson, K. D., & Warren, V. D. (1994). Changes in school governance and
principals' roles: Changing jurisdictions, new power dynamics, and conflict
in restructured schools. In Murphy, J. and K. S. Louis (Eds.), Reshaping the
principalship: Insights from transformational reform efforts. (pp. 220-36).
Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990).
Transformational leaders' behavior and their effects on followers' trust in
leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership
Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
Prager, K. (1992). Estimating the extent of school restructuring. Brief to
policymakers, (4).
Prestine, N. (1991, April). Completing the essential schools metaphor: Principal as
enabler. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago.
(1994). Ninety degrees from everywhere. In Murphy, Joseph and
Karen Seashore Louis (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from
transformational reform efforts (pp. 123-151). Newbury Park, Calif.: Corwin
Press.
Roberts, N. (1986). Transforming leadership: A process of collective action. Human
Relations, 38(11), 1023-1046.
Rosenblum, S., Louis, K. S., & Rossmiller, R. A. (1994). School leadership and
teacher quality of work life in restructuring schools. In Murphy, J. and K. S.
Louis (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transformational
reform efforts (pp. 99-122). Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Rosenholtz, S. (1991). Teachers' workplace: The social organization of schools.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Rusch, E. (1992). The voices of restructuring: democratic practices in Oregon
network schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon,
Eugene.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Why we should seek substitutes for leadership.
Educational Leadership, 49(5), 41-45. EJ 439 283.
Shedd, J., & Bacharach, S. (1991). Tangled hierarchies: Teachers as professionals
and the mangement of schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ED 354 586.
42
50
Smylie, M., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1992). Teacher leaders and their principals:
Exploring the development of new working relationships. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 28(2), 150-184. EJ 442 832.
6
Oregon School
Study Council
University of Oregon
Nonprofit
Organization
US Postage
PAID
Eugene OR
1787 Agate Street
Eugene OR 97403
s.
Permit No 63
52